Scale Simulated Fun
08-11-2011, 09:26 PM
#1
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 233
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Scale Simulated Fun
Hello everyone,
In the interest of realism and scaled fun, here’s an idea tankers may consider (less simulated armour and ammo attributes)
Since IR battling are skewed towards the heavies (which in real context is quite hard to field and maintain), would relative weights probably be necessary? This puts a troop commander to a point of tactical decision either to field numerous light (5) to medium tanks (3), than sending a lone heavy in a battle day/scenario. Logistically (both in real and scaled), transporting tanks to battle sites are to be considered, unless you have unlimited baggage allowance and/or brings along a truck. In the absence of inertia simulation, shoot and hide sequence makes IR battling funny (aside from the fan shot, 45 deg and slope defense), seeing WWII heavies driving like tankers on crack. Relative weight, not only restricts movements, impose tank maintenance challenges, but also simulates mileage. That is to either to invest in higher cap batteries in-tank, or frequently change out batteries in the field by driving back to base.
Heavies does have its advantages, more tonnage means more armour as well as punch. To simulate the offensive edge of heavies, without requiring an overhaul of the current systems means modifying the method of IR led mounting. That is to say, allowing more range for heavies (~ up to 30 m, scaled as 500 m), while everthing levels out below 5 m (scaled <100 m). This could probably be achieved by adjustments on the LED mounting, allowing more collimation for heavies (~ 6 mm recess from the tube tip), while more spread and dissipation for lighties (1 mm recess).
Here’s a simple table for reference for 1:16 tanks
Tamiya Classes Defense Value Reload Time, s Relative Weight, kg IR tube recess from tip, mm
Light 3 3 3-6 3
Medium 6 5 6-9 5
Heavy 9 9 >9 6
DBC Classes Defense Value Reload Time, s Relative Weight, kg IR tube recess from tip, mm
Super Light 1 2 1-3 1
Light 3 3 3-5 2
Medium 5 5 5-9 5
Heavy 9 9 >9 6
Modified HE-HL M1A2 now clocks ~ 9 kg, and I’m putting it under DBC heavy. The modified HL M26 at 6 kg, now is under DBC Medium, while the stock HL M41A3 at 3.5 kg is Light. This probably allows for battling all tanks, normalized according to the above suggested relative weights and IR tube recess.
WWII classifications now are downgraded by 1 class, while 1950’s-1990’s MBT are medium and MBT from 1990 onwards at the heavies.
All the best to the think tankers!!!
In the interest of realism and scaled fun, here’s an idea tankers may consider (less simulated armour and ammo attributes)
Since IR battling are skewed towards the heavies (which in real context is quite hard to field and maintain), would relative weights probably be necessary? This puts a troop commander to a point of tactical decision either to field numerous light (5) to medium tanks (3), than sending a lone heavy in a battle day/scenario. Logistically (both in real and scaled), transporting tanks to battle sites are to be considered, unless you have unlimited baggage allowance and/or brings along a truck. In the absence of inertia simulation, shoot and hide sequence makes IR battling funny (aside from the fan shot, 45 deg and slope defense), seeing WWII heavies driving like tankers on crack. Relative weight, not only restricts movements, impose tank maintenance challenges, but also simulates mileage. That is to either to invest in higher cap batteries in-tank, or frequently change out batteries in the field by driving back to base.
Heavies does have its advantages, more tonnage means more armour as well as punch. To simulate the offensive edge of heavies, without requiring an overhaul of the current systems means modifying the method of IR led mounting. That is to say, allowing more range for heavies (~ up to 30 m, scaled as 500 m), while everthing levels out below 5 m (scaled <100 m). This could probably be achieved by adjustments on the LED mounting, allowing more collimation for heavies (~ 6 mm recess from the tube tip), while more spread and dissipation for lighties (1 mm recess).
Here’s a simple table for reference for 1:16 tanks
Tamiya Classes Defense Value Reload Time, s Relative Weight, kg IR tube recess from tip, mm
Light 3 3 3-6 3
Medium 6 5 6-9 5
Heavy 9 9 >9 6
DBC Classes Defense Value Reload Time, s Relative Weight, kg IR tube recess from tip, mm
Super Light 1 2 1-3 1
Light 3 3 3-5 2
Medium 5 5 5-9 5
Heavy 9 9 >9 6
Modified HE-HL M1A2 now clocks ~ 9 kg, and I’m putting it under DBC heavy. The modified HL M26 at 6 kg, now is under DBC Medium, while the stock HL M41A3 at 3.5 kg is Light. This probably allows for battling all tanks, normalized according to the above suggested relative weights and IR tube recess.
WWII classifications now are downgraded by 1 class, while 1950’s-1990’s MBT are medium and MBT from 1990 onwards at the heavies.
All the best to the think tankers!!!
